Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 121, Issue 1, pp 521–536 | Cite as

What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books

  • Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh
  • A. Noorhidawati
  • A. AbrizahEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper reports on book impact assessment using bibliometrics, usage metrics and altmetrics. The objective of the study is to investigate the citation, usage, reach and readership of scholarly books published by Springer Nature during a three-year time-span after their publication using citations, downloads, social media mentions and online reference manager bookmarks data. The study population was limited to those Springer books published in 2014, covering four broad disciplines (pure sciences, social sciences, engineering and medicine) to study disciplinary differences. The 3 years’ span was chosen to make sure all books had enough time to attract citations, downloads, attentions and bookmarks. Data on 1116 randomly-selected books were obtained in July 2018 and they contained the total number of times each book was cited in CrossRef.com, downloaded in Link.Springer.com, mentioned in altmetric.com, and bookmarked in Mendeley.com over a three-year time window from January 1, 2015 to December 30, 2017. Although books are the preferred publication format especially in arts, humanities and social sciences, the results of book assessment based on the citation, usage, social media metrics from social science discipline was not apparent. This is evident as books in pure sciences were more frequently cited, books in medicine received more social media attentions and engineering books had the highest download counts and Mendeley bookmarks. The results also demonstrated that Crossref citations and SpringerLink downloads correlated significantly in all four disciplines indicating books with more download statistics also accumulated higher citation counts. The study is significant to provide evidence that alternative sources such as usage-based and social media-based metrics could act as complement to traditional citation-based measures for assessing the impact of books and/or book chapters in a multidimensional way.

Keywords

Book impact assessment Bibliometrics Usage metrics Altmetrics Crossref citation Mendeley bookmarks 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research received no specific Grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for profit sectors.

References

  1. Abrizah, A., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Can the impact of non-Western academic books be measured? An investigation of Google Books and Google Scholar for Malaysia. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(12), 2498–2508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chi, P. S., & Glanzel, W. (2017). An empirical investigation of the associations among usage, scientific collaboration and citation impact. Scientometrics, 112(1), 403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chi, P-S., Jeuris, W., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2015). Book bibliometrics—A new perspective and challenge in indicator building based on the book citation index. In A. A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. A. Salah, C. Sugimoto, & U. Al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 1161–1169). Istanbul: Bogaziçi University Printhouse.Google Scholar
  4. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003–2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Erfanmanesh, M. (2017). The presence of Iranian Information science and library science articles in social media: An altmetric study. Iranian Journal of Information Processing & Management, 32(2), 349–373.Google Scholar
  6. Gimenez-Toledo, E., Tejada-Artigas, C., & Manana-Rodriguez, J. (2012). Evaluation of scientific books’ publishers in social sciences and humanities: Results of a survey. Research Evaluation, 22(1), 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., & Purnell, P. J. (2014). The power of book reviews: A simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes. Scientometrics, 98(2), 841–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Opportunities for and limitations of the book citation index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1388–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2016). Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 67(1), 232–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 65(4), 656–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkins, D. T. (2018). Almetrics and books: Bookmetrix and other implementation. Against the Grain, 28(3), pp. 84–85, Article 18.Google Scholar
  13. Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819–1828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 60(8), 1537–1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015a). Alternative metrics for book impact assessment: Can choice reviews be a useful source? In A. A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. A. Salah, C. Sugimoto, & U. Al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 59–70). Istanbul: Bogaziçi University Printhouse.Google Scholar
  17. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015b). Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 3: Books and non-standard outputs. El Profesional de la Información, 24(6), 724–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2016). Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books? Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 67(3), 566–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2018). Can microsoft academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books? Journal of Informetrics, 12, 972–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Abdoli, M. (2017). Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books. JASIST, 68, 2004–2016.Google Scholar
  21. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of google books, google scholar, and scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 62(11), 2147–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moed, H. F. (2005). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 56(10), 1088–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2016). On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 67(2), 412–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing the Mendeley readership of social sciences and humanities research. In J. Gorraiz, E. Schiebel, C. Gumpenberger, M. Hörlesberger, & H. Moed (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th international society of scientometrics and informetrics (Vol. 1, pp. 200–214).Google Scholar
  26. Piryania, R., Guptab, V., Singh, V. K., & Pintod, D. (2018). Book impact assessment: A quantitative and text-based exploratory analysis. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems., 34, 3101–3110.  https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-169494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thelwall, M. (2018). Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts. Scientometrics, pp. 1–10. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/153373181.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec. 2018.
  28. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PloS ONE, 8(5), e64841. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064841. Accessed on 20 Dec 2018.
  29. Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2016). Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 67(12), 3036–3050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Torres-Salinas, D., Gorraiz, J., & Robinson-Garcia, N. (2018). The insoluble problems of books: What does Altmetric.com have to offer? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 691–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., Jiménez-Contreras, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2012). Towards a ‘book publishers citation reports’. First approach using the ‘book citation index’. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 35(4), 615–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. WG8. 2018. Relevance of academic books in research communication [online]. SciELO 20 Years. 2018. Available from: https://www.scielo20.org/redescielo/en/working-groups/wg8/#1521832077831-c8dae681-e2a4. Accessed 23 March 2019.
  33. Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhou, Q., Zhang, C., Zhao, S. X., & Chen, B. (2016). Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1435–1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zuccala, A., Verleysen, F. T., Cornacchia, R., Engels, T. C., Lewandowski, D., & Haustein, S. (2015). Altmetrics for the humanities: Comparing Goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 320–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Library and Information Science, Faculty of Computer Science and Information TechnologyUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations